Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Game Reviews are Broken?

Posted by Zonk on from the plz-fix-k-thnks dept.

Kotaku is running an opinion piece looking at the process of reviewing videogames, and comes to the conclusion that the whole system is entirely broken. Author Mark Wilson takes potshots at the concept of assigning a numerical valuation to a game, and the emphasis on product reviews rather than content reviews. "If there is no such thing as a perfect game, when why the hell are you scoring out of 100? It's not just PC Gamer that thinks this way--most publications, even those who do give out 'perfect' scores, do so begrudgingly. It's as if the developer has somehow cheated and broken their system. The movie reviewers solved this problem a long time ago. That's why most adopted a simpler rating system in which a 4-star movie didn't imply 'perfection' but supreme excellence. In most cases, games are penalized through being divided by a sum that they can never possibly reach."

4 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. Not New by quanticle · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Game publishers, consumers, and even the reviewers themselves have been going on about the shortcomings of the current system for quite a while now. Yet we never see any alternatives being proposed. I say to the article writer, "Yes, I agree that the current system sucks. But what is your alternative?"

    --
    We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
  2. The best review by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The best review has no score. Simply somebody playing the dang game, and talking about what they like, what they don't like, what they'd improve, what really bothered them, what really excited them.

    Find a reviewer with a decent command of the language, and who likes the sorts of games you like, and you're good to go.

    --
    Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    1. Re:The best review by moderatorrater · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I disagree. For good games, a good review is definitely more than the score, but when I check out a much-hyped game and see a score of 50/100, that's a big deal to me. That means I don't even have to worry about reading the review, and in some cases that's the best review there is. During the era of 3000 RTS games a month, it was nice to be able to sort the good from the bad with a glance. It's also nice to be able to see the high and low points of a series, to be able to see that most people find the mechanics of FFVIII and FFIX lacking so that I know, if i'm going to start the series, start it somewhere else.

      As TFA states, the review industry is necessary because of the large amount of games coming out and the large proportion of crap that inhabits it. If something is crap from end to end and at least four different people agree, then there's no need for me to look further.

  3. Exactly... by rwven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These very thoughts came to my mind when I was reading all the Halo3 Reviews... When a game has so-so single player and awesome multiplayer...how does that get the game loads of perfect scores? A perfect game wouldn't need to make up for areas of lacking ANYWHERE. That aside, even the multiplay, while fun, is far from perfect. Halo3 was, and is, a great package but it's nowhere near a "perfect" game. I'm not just picking on Halo3 here either. HL2 for instance was a phenomenal game....but to call it "perfect" (like so many reviewers did) is just naive and downright inaccurate.